I'm not a shareholder in the Dow Jones Corporation but I admit to being an unapologetic promoter of the Wall Street Journal. In this era of a devoutly liberal media which seeks (even in its news reporting) to promote its progressive agenda, the WSJ remains a beacon of sanity and consistency. Its editorial page is fearless, honest and not in any way infected with the political-correctness virus that pervades our culture. Thank goodness.

Since many of you don't get the WSJ I will outline an important editorial that appears in today's paper entitled "Wiretap Debacle". It will make your blood boil, and further convince you that the Democrats in Congress are not serious about protecting the American people. At issue are the so-called "warrant-less wiretaps" of Al Qaeda suspects which, since the September 11 attacks, have been one of the most effective intelligence tools in the war against foreign terrorists. After the New York Times disclosed the existence of the program in 2005, a hue and cry from the Left created a maelstrom of protest over this "obviously illegal attempt to spy on the American people".

Now, remember, Democratic leaders in Congress had been thoroughly briefed on the program when it started, and had not protested in the least. But once the press got a hold of it, the chicken-hawks in Congress came down on the side of the ACLU in protesting that the President hadn't sought warrants from the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 -- painting Bush again in the press as someone seeking to act "outside the law". Anything to score a political point against the President!

Unfortunately, President Bush relented, and agreed in January, 2007 to seek warrants under FISA. He clearly didn't have to -- the courts have clearly upheld the President's right to use wiretaps outside of FISA authority. He did so as a "compromise" with the Democrats in Congress and lower the partisan temperature in Washington. An olive branch, of sorts.

And what did it get him? Zilch. Since his compromise with the Left, the President has been seeking two crucial modifications to FISA that would make it applicable to the current high-tech struggle against terrorists. 1978 was a long time ago in tech years, and the FISA law is hopelessly outdated in dealing with the complexities and speed of Internet and digital phone traffic. The first modification is to allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to track communications that originate outside of the US but are routed through our domestic "airspace" in real-time -- and in some cases acquire a warrant after the fact. This should be common sense -- since the speed of these transmissions are difficult to track, and it is impossible to know what is in these communications until after they've been heard!

The second modification is to provide liability protection to the telecom companies that provide assistance in tracking these calls. Unbelievably, many of these companies have been sued in the wake of the NY Times disclosure of the program for cooperating with the NSA. They've been sued for assisting the government in providing access to Al Qaeda communications. They have since stopped cooperating for fear of further litigation. The Bush administration wants to provide indemnification to these companies so that they can again provide assistance in protecting the American people.

As you might have guessed, the Democrats in Congress are resisting both these modifications -- essentially gutting the effectiveness of the NSA wiretap program. Why? Because Pat Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is more interested in finding a smoking gun on how the program got started in the first place -- 5 years ago! In the interests of that investigation, the wiretap program will not get the modernization that it needs. And, of course, where there are Democrats there are the trial lawyers, who are using their massive influence to squash any indemnification of the telecom companies when assisting the NSA. It's more important that the lawyers get paid than the government have the assistance it needs to fight terrorism.

So, when you hear the Democrats say (as they always do) that they are serious about fighting terrorism you should laugh -- a hearty, belly-aching laugh.

Except it's not funny.

It's inconceivable to me that in these serious times we have elected such unserious people to lead us. No, not George Bush. The President has many flaws and has made many mistakes, but being unserious certainly is not one of them. The Congress, however, is filled with adolescents playing games. On Wednesday night they had a sleep-over at the capitol, where they spent their time between cake and ice cream debating yet another symbolic "get out of Iraq" bill. The legislation wasn't real -- it had no chance of passing and was riddled with caveats and loopholes -- but it again showed that in the halls of Congress, leadership is about pandering and positioning. It's almost enough to make you want to move to Europe. Almost.

I can't help but think that we've entered a new, post-democracy age. Some would argue that with the explosion in technology, media coverage and the primacy of polling, that we've actually become more democratic as a system. I think its just the opposite. Our system isn't designed to be a direct democracy based on polling. We have a process where our elected officials in Congress are supposed to represent us -- not by parroting the latest polls, but by acting in our best interests. Often, that isn't the most popular position. You see, it may come as a shock to some, but the Founding Father's understood that the public wouldn't be in the best position to make judgements on the myriad of issues that the nation would confront. This is even more true today, when we face exceedingly complex challenges both at home and abroad. So, we elect people to the Congress to analyze, evaluate, process and decide for us. Their duty is not to swing with the wind; their job is to lead.

Unfortunately, our democracy isn't working now. Our politicians preen for the camera, issue endless soundbites and do very little in the way of leading. It's a popularity contest to appeal to the lowest common denominator -- the preservation of power and privilege. Their power and privilege. It seems to matter little what the facts are, or what is truly best for the nation. What's best for themselves is all that matters now. Its a democracy of one.

I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment called "Troublesome Young Men" by Lynne Olson. It's the story of the battle of the anti-appeasement forces in England during the late 1930s. Many may know of the failure of Neville Chamberlain to deal with Hitler prior to the start of World War Two. But few may know that the appeasement forces ran deep in the British Parliament and among the public, who wanted to avoid war so badly that they allowed themselves to be sucked into a delusion -- that Hitler wasn't the evil menace that the evidence clearly showed him to be. It was the wishful thinking of the idealist -- who believed in the essential goodness of the Nazis and the notion that Hitler was also interested in peace. It was the lonely voice of Churchill and a few courageous others who remained realists, imploring England to wake up and resist the temptation to continue sleeping while the Nazi's rolled through Europe.

I see many parallels to today. I believe we are being led in Congress by those who don't have the courage (or good sense) to lead -- who seek appeasement, and who fail to understand that we are in the midst of a titanic struggle for the future. Those who wish to leave Iraq to founder don't believe that we are fighting the enemy there instead of here, and don't see our defeat (which, no matter how you parse it, is how the enemy will interpret our withdrawal) as a grave risk to our security. They live in a fantasy world of Chamberlain-like proportions. And 2008 is just around the corner.

So, where is our Winston Churchill? Where is our Robert Boothby? Our Leo Amery? Where are our troublesome young men who will oppose appeasement and alert the public to the dangers we face?

Where, indeed?